37 replies · 750 views
Just watched the new 007 trailer.What do you think of it? I think it looks TOP!
http://movies.aol.com/casino-royale-james-bond/exclusive-video-features
Doesn't appear to have the same humour as Connery,Brosnan and Moore,but Craig does cut it as an action figure.
i saw the trailer when i went to see Superman, it looks pretty cool. it'll be worth a watch i'm sure.
Nice to see that they are finally adapting the Fleming novel into an OFFICIAL movie....I don't acknowledge the knock off done in the 60s.
JHC
i never saw the david niven (was it?) original. was it meant to be a parody or was it meant to be a serious bond film?
NOOLigan wrote: no blond bond.
I would tend to agree. I thought Pierce Brosnan was pretty good in the role albeit his last film was particuarly drab.
I was reading an article about Rupert Everett the other day and he felt he would have made a good James Bond, particuarly with the original Ian Fleming style characterisation.
AgentWood wrote: i never saw the david niven (was it?) original. was it meant to be a parody or was it meant to be a serious bond film?
A parody. A cast of thousands if you like. Woody Allen, Ursula Andress and so on. A bit of an embarrassment to be honest. Ironic though as David Niven was in line for the original part of James Bond.
I really don't know about Craig though. I would have liked Clive Owen or even Brosnan to have a crack at Casino Royale.
I'll pass on this movie.
It's a pity that they casted Craig in this film since this is based on THE classic Ian Fleming novel for James Bond.
Emma
Monty's Angels 2 : Full Throttle wrote: Get some Diana Rigg in it!
She was great in On her Majesty's Secret Service.
I think she would make a top M. 
Shed Peel wrote: I'll pass on this movie.
It's a pity that they casted Craig in this film since this is based on THE classic Ian Fleming novel for James Bond.
Emma
I'm a bit hesitant as well on the casting of Bond....however, it does seem that the crap Bronson movies (where Bond is an expert in multi-tasking everything, skydiving, while snowboarding, while controling a remote control car, while shooting with both hands, and caressing down a beautiful woman). I like the Connery style Bond, and this movie looks like a bit of a return to that.
JHC
EdelBrock wrote:
Shed Peel wrote: I'll pass on this movie.
It's a pity that they casted Craig in this film since this is based on THE classic Ian Fleming novel for James Bond.
Emma
I'm a bit hesitant as well on the casting of Bond....however, it does seem that the crap Bronson movies (where Bond is an expert in multi-tasking everything, skydiving, while snowboarding, while controling a remote control car, while shooting with both hands, and caressing down a beautiful woman). I like the Connery style Bond, and this movie looks like a bit of a return to that.
JHC
Wait, wait just a damn minute....
When was Charles Bronson in a Bond movie? 
:p
PHD wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i never saw the david niven (was it?) original. was it meant to be a parody or was it meant to be a serious bond film?
A parody. A cast of thousands if you like. Woody Allen, Ursula Andress and so on. A bit of an embarrassment to be honest. Ironic though as David Niven was in line for the original part of James Bond.
I've seen it, it has some funny moments but overall feels like one of those "hey, let's cast the entire Beverly Hills directory in this one!" films from the sixties or seventies (this came right before the turn to making disaster movies with an all-star cast, though one could argue that this was the first of that genre) 
When you have Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, and Orson Freakin' Welles in the same damn movie, you might want to try and give them a decent plot to work with 
Taboo # 7 wrote:
PHD wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i never saw the david niven (was it?) original. was it meant to be a parody or was it meant to be a serious bond film?
A parody. A cast of thousands if you like. Woody Allen, Ursula Andress and so on. A bit of an embarrassment to be honest. Ironic though as David Niven was in line for the original part of James Bond.
I've seen it, it has some funny moments but overall feels like one of those "hey, let's cast the entire Beverly Hills directory in this one!" films from the sixties or seventies (this came right before the turn to making disaster movies with an all-star cast, though one could argue that this was the first of that genre)
When you have Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, and Orson Freakin' Welles in the same damn movie, you might want to try and give them a decent plot to work with
I always wanted to place comments at your blog but it never allows me because you don't permit all non-members to communicate with ya! 
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote:
PHD wrote:
AgentWood wrote: i never saw the david niven (was it?) original. was it meant to be a parody or was it meant to be a serious bond film?
A parody. A cast of thousands if you like. Woody Allen, Ursula Andress and so on. A bit of an embarrassment to be honest. Ironic though as David Niven was in line for the original part of James Bond.
I've seen it, it has some funny moments but overall feels like one of those "hey, let's cast the entire Beverly Hills directory in this one!" films from the sixties or seventies (this came right before the turn to making disaster movies with an all-star cast, though one could argue that this was the first of that genre)
When you have Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, and Orson Freakin' Welles in the same damn movie, you might want to try and give them a decent plot to work with
I always wanted to place comments at your blog but it never allows me because you don't permit all non-members to communicate with ya!
Yeah, when I started I kept getting all sorts of spam in the comments section, so I enabled that to keep it from getting like that.
And I'm surprised anyone reads that
But yeah, I apologize. It's just a lot less frustrating that way (no thank you, I like the size of my penis as it is, thank you very much)
I personally think Daniel Craig looks way too young to play James Bond. That's why I don't care about the Bond films with him in it.
leather_girl wrote: I personally think Daniel Craig looks way too young to play James Bond. That's why I don't care about the Bond films with him in it.
You're absolutely right. Since the character was born into adulthood in 1952, Bond must be about 87 years old now! They should just bring back Connery to make it authentico.
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
leather_girl wrote: I personally think Daniel Craig looks way too young to play James Bond. That's why I don't care about the Bond films with him in it.
You're absolutely right. Since the character was born into adulthood in 1952, Bond must be about 87 years old now! They should just bring back Connery to make it authentico.
Well, what I meant was, compared to how Sean Connery looked in the 1960s, and how Pierce Brosnan looked in the late 1990's, Daniel Craig looks too young to be Bond.
leather_girl wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
leather_girl wrote: I personally think Daniel Craig looks way too young to play James Bond. That's why I don't care about the Bond films with him in it.
You're absolutely right. Since the character was born into adulthood in 1952, Bond must be about 87 years old now! They should just bring back Connery to make it authentico.
Well, what I meant was, compared to how Sean Connery looked in the 1960s, and how Pierce Brosnan looked in the late 1990's, Daniel Craig looks too young to be Bond.
Casino Royale is the novel that is based on Fleming's actual secret mission against the Nazis isn't it? (It's been awhile since I read it) If so, he would be of the right age, in the eyes of Fleming's original writings.
JHC
EdelBrock wrote:
leather_girl wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
leather_girl wrote: I personally think Daniel Craig looks way too young to play James Bond. That's why I don't care about the Bond films with him in it.
You're absolutely right. Since the character was born into adulthood in 1952, Bond must be about 87 years old now! They should just bring back Connery to make it authentico.
Well, what I meant was, compared to how Sean Connery looked in the 1960s, and how Pierce Brosnan looked in the late 1990's, Daniel Craig looks too young to be Bond.
Casino Royale is the novel that is based on Fleming's actual secret mission against the Nazis isn't it? (It's been awhile since I read it) If so, he would be of the right age, in the eyes of Fleming's original writings. JHC
What does Casino Royal have to do with Flemming? It was a 60s parody on 007 movies! And now they're doing a remake of that 1967 comedy.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
leather_girl wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
leather_girl wrote: I personally think Daniel Craig looks way too young to play James Bond. That's why I don't care about the Bond films with him in it.
You're absolutely right. Since the character was born into adulthood in 1952, Bond must be about 87 years old now! They should just bring back Connery to make it authentico.
Well, what I meant was, compared to how Sean Connery looked in the 1960s, and how Pierce Brosnan looked in the late 1990's, Daniel Craig looks too young to be Bond.
Casino Royale is the novel that is based on Fleming's actual secret mission against the Nazis isn't it? (It's been awhile since I read it) If so, he would be of the right age, in the eyes of Fleming's original writings. JHC
What does Casino Royal have to do with Flemming? It was a 60s parody on 007 movies! And now they're doing a remake of that 1967 comedy.
It is a James Bond story written by Ian Flemming; a good one too.
That 60s movie has almost nothing to do with the novel. The film made by Broccoli productions will not be a comedy remake.
It will be in the style of the other movies.
It had the chance of being a really good Bond movie. Unfortunately the lead has been mis-cast.
I didn't really care for the novel, truth be told. The whole thing was practically just Bond sitting around playing cards. Boring.
Ahh here's a good link that answered my question. Guess Flemming said it had to do with his secret mission, but others have said he imagined his secret work was greater than it was really.
Casino Royale was his first book, and he sold the rights to make a TV movie, and series though it fell through, and after a death or two the rights fell into the wrong hands making that blasted abomination in the 60s.
I like Daniel Craig as an actor for several years now. I'm convinced that he will do a good job.
Btw. Roger Moore was blonde, too...
No problem with what Bond looks like. The recent films were a bit too ridiculous, with all the stupid gadgets he used.
back to the style of the earlier films hopefully, where bond's a proper secret agent, instead of a walking gadget shop...
Daniel Craig is definitely the fittest bond yet, but Roger Moore will always be number one for me 
I will give it a chance, looks like a return to basics, much like "For Your Eyes Only" was very minmalist for Bond standards, but still great, after the over-the-top "Moonraker", which the latter seems to share in spirit with "Die Another Day"
